[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:13:50AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:45:45 +1000, Anthony Towns
> <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> >Once you get over giggling at the phrasing (or maybe that's just me), 
> >there're a few answers. The ones that come to my mind are:
> >
> >  (a) Just build against testing/stable instead of unstable; when etch 
> >happens, fix up any remaining problems, and release a snapshot that more 
> >or less matches etch. Rinse, repeat.
> >
> >  (b) Just build against unstable, until you get bored. Then stop, clean 
> >up some stuff and do some basic testing, then release a snapshot.
> >
> >  (c) Something else
> >
> >Note that it's the porters who'll have to make that call. If you do it 
> >well, your port could even end up better supported than i386.
> Is there support from the Debian infrastructure for (a)? If yes,
> please amend the Vancouver Document which currently says that (b) is
> the only option. If no, please stop joking.

The correct question would be "Will there be support from the Debian
infrastructure [...] ?" There is nothing yet for either of them (which
is one of the reasons to start the discussion about it before the sarge

Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Reply to: